About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
that are beneficiary of another insurance program. that loan is a hidden tax that people don't focus on unless it's pointed out to them. it raises the cost to everyone else. that fact never gets talked about. and it should. >> the largest government health care program medicare is frequently reported to have fraud levels of high sometimes $60 billion a year. i think that's a number i heard. >> i heard it. >> so you can imagine the frustration an the part of the public about that kind of . >> absolutely. >> that kind of fraud and abuse. what has this city never been able to get the arms around the level of fraud and abuse. what does it say for the expansion of government-one programs? >> well, the fact is that it's expensive to weed out the waste fraud and abuse. it takes an awful lot of government time and money put in to eliminating it. i think it's worth doing it. i don't think we do it nearly enough because if you stop it, and slow it down, then gradually you can retract the government requirement to weed it out. you get rid of it you don't have to pay as much to keep it out as you do to get o
to true tax cheats -- and that doesn't mean something that's under discussion or under litigation. that's ones that have already been deemed tax cheats. and the second thing is to not pay money to people who are deceased already. what did we learn from katrina? we -- we learned that nearly a billion dollars of katrina money went to people who owed billions and billions of dollars to the federal government. so -- and these weren't disputable facts. these were real facts. we also learned that we spent significantly, over $100 million, granting grants and money to people who were deceased. so all we're saying in this bill let's learn from our mistakes and let's not do the same thing. so this puts a prohibition on money going to people who have a legitimate adjudicated claim by the i.r.s. against their not paying taxes due to the federal government that they in fact will not participate because they didn't participate. and the second thing is if in fact you don't exist anymore in life, you shouldn't be collecting money off our kids to pay for something that isn't a real need. the final poin
row. >> my name's gerald chandler from itech consul taxes. i'd like to go back to the question of children without getting married. both after the children is born how many eventually get married and say you actually transform yourself into a married family with children, and how many have stable relationships that may go on 20, 30 years without getting married and jet still have -- and yet still have children? >> does anybody have any evidence on -- >> or how many intact families when the child is born p end up getting divorced? >> well, i don't think anybody -- >> i think, maybe roger's in favor of mandatory marriage for people. as a solution. it's an interesting statistic. i decry it. i think people parent with two-parent families, could be same sex, could be opposite sex, i haven't heard roger's view here. i don't think it has much to do with this issue here. >> can i think it has everything to do with this issue here. i think the reason is because of the fact that when kids get to be 18 years old, there is a real gap in the number of african-american kids who are, you know
limited exceptions exist to this principle of openness. for example, most americans acknowledge that tax collectors need to have access to some financial information. but that the government does not have the right to share this information openly. so we strike the appropriate balance on a whole host of these issues on a regular basis. another limited exception exists for the protection of national security. the u.s. government has an inherent responsibility to protect its citizens from threats, and it can do this most effectively if it's sometimes allowed to operate in secrecy. i don't expect our generals to publicly discuss the details of every troop movement in afghanistan any more than americans expected george washington to publish his strategy for the battle of york town. by the same token, american citizens recognized that their government may sometimes rely on secret intelligence collection methods in order to ensure national security, ensure public safety, and they recognize that these methods often are more effective when the details, what are really the operations and methods
are reminders of the time when discriminatory practices such as poll taxes, literacy tax, grandfather clauses were commonplace. those have no place in 21st century america. the constitution is for all of us, insuring all americans are able to vote and have their vote counted, should be an issue of concern to democrats and republicans. it should be an matter of conscience for us, regardless of what political party we belong to. so it was no such is ago, republicans democrats stood on the capital steps to reaffirm our commitment to full full democratic because a patient. we reauthorize the key provisions of the voting rights act of 1965. our work in 2006 reinvigorate reauthorized, stood in stark contrast to the tremendous resistance of the bitter politics which met the initial landmark law. after nearly 20 hearings in this committee, and the house judiciary committee, we found in section five of the voting rights act continue to be affected and the necessary tool for protecting voting rights among modern-day barriers to voting. legislation contained specific parts without the need for reauthori
was against the woman. [inaudible] paid social security taxes just like the rest of us. but they didn't gain for her family the same protection as the family of a male wage earner who have paid into social security. so the discrimination begins with the woman, and then the man, because he is, his role as parent rather than breadwinner, doesn't get the benefit. there was a unanimous judgment of the supreme court in that case. and by the way, we got it from the district court, from the court of first instance, to the supreme court, before he reached his third birthday. and that is record speed for federal litigation. anyway, the court reach a unanimous verdict, divided three ways. the majority thought it discriminates against the woman wage earner, the very argument i just presented. three thought it discriminates against the male as the parent, and one said, i see this from the vantage point of the baby. it makes no sense, the child should have the opportunity or the personal care of the sole surviving parent. only if that parent is female, not male. of the cases that i was involved in from t
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6